Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  May 13, 2014 5:30pm-7:31pm EDT

5:30 pm
you supported in the georgia state legislature. i think senator blumenthal asked about this. i have some or questions. it would've required posting on the internet about the number of medical procedures that doctors have performed having to do with terminating a pregnancy. there can clearly be public safety implications for these doctors if you put all this detailed information about them online. i think you can see in other areas as well and i think we have certainly seen lives being taken from these doctors that terminate pregnancies. we don't put this kind of information online for other procedures and other medical areas. my first question is if your views on this issue are still the same? >> i would be hesitant to give you my views on that issue. as much as that may come before me as a judge, but i will tell you that was a floor amendment. i didn't have any idea it it was coming. i didn't have any thing to do
5:31 pm
with the altering of that amendment. in retrospect, it particularly in light of what i have learned subsequently concerning the public safety issue, i should not have voted for that amendment. >> you consider that at the time you voted on it a public safety risk? now was not aware as i am of the public safety risk. again, the back of throat of bringing up a bill, i should have. in hindsight, it was regretful i did not. >> last year, the supreme court issued an important ruling on marriage equality in the windsor case. how would your personal views on marriage equality impact of decisions as a judge? >> they would not. i would follow windsor and any other cases out of the supreme court. >> would you commit to following
5:32 pm
supreme court precedent in this area when it comes to marriage equality? >> absolutely. >> i know that there have also been some attention around comments you may borrow -- iraq -- while running to be a state court judge. what role do you think about your personal opinions on women's reproductive rights would be? >> it has no role on how i would decide legal issues or decide cases or analyze issues where i could be confirmed as a district court judge. things that has been brought to my attention -- i think would concerning a lot of people, but not as much as the amendment on the doctors posting. took somea bill that pictures of license plates and you took pictures with a license plate, i think.
5:33 pm
what do you think about that and how would that influence any decision that you would make towing forward? -- going forward? >> the choose life adoptions program was a bill i cosponsored -- cosponsored with the majority of the members of the house of the general assembly in georgia because it was important to the constituents. it would have no impact, my personal beliefs on reproductive rights as well is my personal beliefs on issues. it would have no impact but i think my record demonstrates that i am faithful to never interject my personal opinion into decisions i make. >> were there any questions about you injecting your personal opinion into decisions that you made? i am sure yet that case is appealed - -cases appealed as a state court judge or the basis of any of the appeals that you somehow injected your personal views on any subject? >> not one time. >> thank you very much.
5:34 pm
[laughter] >> pay to keep this going but in 2013, you receive the grassroots justice award given by the georgia justice project on behalf of the criminal justice reform counsel. according to the georgia justice, it was created in 2008 as a way to lift up the work of people and organizations whose efforts give voice for lent aid to the poorest in the community. thatmplements the work they do that the georgia justice project. can you tell us about the role you played in the criminal justice reform counsel and the work you did to receive that award? >> thank you, senator. that award was -- was received
5:35 pm
by me. it was not award specific to ledgment of acknow the whole. i've had the pleasure to work to improve the judicial system for the very people that are most frequently involved in it, particularly the criminal justice arena. as a judge, i presided over our circuits first felony program. i believe it was appropriate to try to assist people whose mental health issues or substance abuse issues were driving their conduct. i am proud to say that program still exists. it has now expanded into a mental health court program which i always aspired to do. in 2011, the chief justice of the -- of the georgia supreme court appointed me as part of the reform counsel and we criminal justice reform by doing a lot of the things that this body is considering both in the smart sentencing act and chairman
5:36 pm
leahy's safety valve acts of 2013. we have looked at mandatory minimums and provided a couple of safety valves. we have looked at programs that would assist people with substance abuse issues that are involved in felony criminal conduct so we can assist them in the community. we found those programs that are evidence-based programs were very successful in reducing recidivism. they're better at saving taxpayer money. they put people back with their families. they restore people to a productive life. later, the governor of the state of georgia appointed me for the last two years to cochair the criminal justice reform. in 2013, we addressed juvenile justice reform. program to fiscal incentivize local communities to treat juveniles and their communities as opposed to very costly and unproductive out of home placements.
5:37 pm
last year, i cochair the council again and we addressed the concept of reentry. what do we do with the approximately 18,000 inmates that are being released a year? how can we better cook them to be successful? how can we ensure public safety at a better rate? our recidivism rates were roughly 30%. unacceptable, particularly with respect to the cost of the taxpayers. with the charge we were given, i was very fortunate in being part in the oping a program state that will help these inmates while they are in prison. help these inmates with substance abuse programs while in the system. provide a seamless transition from prison to the community and then provide some resources to the community to ensure the citizens are productive, lawful, compliant with the law, but also productive citizens that can get their lives back. i have been proud to be a part
5:38 pm
of that. >> thank you. that is all. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you. like to ask a couple of questions if i can. again, i regret i was not here. judge boggs, to hear your answer essentiallyion on the bill that had online profiles to the number of abortions performed by dr.. da doctor. i think you said it was a mistake and what did you mean by that? >> i don't think it we appropriate to post it online. it will be a huge public safety risk for the positions -- the physicians that are performing abortions.
5:39 pm
>> you are saying the bill was wrong? >> the amendment that was proposed -- it was not mine. the amendment was ill-conceived, i believe. >> i trust you are aware of the kinds of violence that takes place around this issue. and, there is a question i think among many of my colleagues whether an activist-conservative judge or an activist and serve it up can become -- conservative can become a judge that is not an activist judge. i happen to believe that is possible. in a couple of cases, i voted for 11th circuit and fifth circuit judge which i think have done very judge when they said they would not continue to be activists. i think when you come to a federal court, is really very important that the questions of constitutionality on an issue
5:40 pm
are acted by someone who, as judge adron's have said -- abrams has said, will follow precedent. i've said on this committee for 22 years. we have been acutely disappointed by the fact that people pledge themselves to be decisive and they leave here and they take the oath of a judge and you just watch and you say where has it all gone? i don't want to cast a vote for someone where that happens. and so, i want to ask you a couple of questions. the issue of choice is extraordinarily important to me. i represent a state which is dominantly pro-choice. ont would be your position issues revolving around a woman's right to choose? this is purposefully and note -- an open question. >> thank you. thatsition on matters
5:41 pm
might appear before me regarding a woman's right to choose would be faithfulness to the rule of law, faithfulness to the doct rine. while there have been some bad experiences by members of this committee, i think the best example i can give you is not what i say that i will do, but evidence of what i've done. i spoke to a judge in my state disposing of roughly 14,000 cases. i think my record is the best evidence that i can separate any political or partisan or public policy position i may have from my ability to be an impartial decision-maker. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, i will follow the precedent of the u.s. supreme court on women's reproductive rights issues. see, i listened to a couple of supreme court justices say just that. -- there were long
5:42 pm
discussions on this. bingo. it all changed. it makes us feel very full-ish - - foolish to believe what we hear. so, i mean, for me, i have to make a judgment whether you mean what you say or whether it will be just like the supreme court justices who pledge to us of decisive.uance it just didn't happen. let me ask you another issue and it in aklobuchar began web like to do it in a slightly different way. that is u.s. v. windsor. i am aware a lawsuit is pending so i want to be very careful. i am the main author on repealing the defense of marriage act.
5:43 pm
i was one of 14 that voted against it in the 1990's and we have 42 cosponsors. we are getting close. as you know, 17 states and the district of columbia have essentially approved the right of marriage to same-sex partners. law,doma did was family divorce, etc. is generally to preserve a state law. in that case, they made it to preserve a federal law. some 1100g, removed federal rights from couples that are duly married in their state. so, this involves a state tax right, a social security right, and on and on. the question i have would be if your state were to approve
5:44 pm
same-sex marriage or the supreme court on the windsor case, i guess would repeal doma, how would you feel and how would you act as a judge? personal feelings would be irrelevant to how i act as a judge. you have my commitment i would follow the decision of windsor. onould follow any precedent marriage equality issues as i would any issues. i personal opinions expressed over 10 years ago on that issue may or may not have changed to whatever might personal beliefs are on that, they have never been relevant to how i have decided cases. with respect to your earlier , my fundamental philosophy as a judge is to have an obligation to follow the law. you don't have to believe me necessarily when i sit here today under oath. i hope you would. i hope you would also look to
5:45 pm
what i have done over the last 10 years that demonstrates a faithfulness to follow precedent in over 14,000 cases and opinions i have authored that all have been made available to the committee. i think it is a fundamental obligation of judges to follow. i recognize that maybe that is not always follow through with by some nominees. votell, at least my depends on whether i believe that or not and for a long i can continue to believe that. think this is a very hard one. the third issue is race. i think you were eloquent on the subject of the confederate flag and what it means. it really means much more than just the material of that flag. it is a whole history, and whole set of beliefs which are rather
5:46 pm
countered to america of today. know, iis, and i don't hope to have a chance to talk with you more after this, but what i want you to know is for my vote, i have to have certainty. i don't know quite how to get it in view of his record. i just want to put that on the table publicly. >> i respect that position. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. back to ase by going line of questioning that i began. i know some of my colleagues have pursued it. the amendment dealing with performancesoctors of abortion. i know that you said that it
5:47 pm
wasn't your amendment. been, maybe i yould just ask you -- were thatre about the violence was linked to performing abortions at that time? in was killed the faith statute in new york was passed in 1994. your amendment was voted on in 2001. it was clearly a very powerful history of violence linked to doctors providing these services. find, frankly, incredible the idea that you would not this amendment
5:48 pm
would put doctors at risk. >> thank you for the question. indeed, it was not my amendment, however i did supported on the floor. i stated earlier in this hearing that i believe the amendment was ill-conceived. i regret that i voted for it. public safetyhe risk now much more so than i did at that time. ultimately, i think as a legislator casting thousands of votes or amendments and bills, making decisions and committee ommittee, it is not entirely unexpected there may be some votes that i cast that looking back on them as a legislator try my best to represent the people i represented it in a very staunchly pro-life district, i might've made some mistakes. i was in the perfect legislator. i'm not a perfect judge, but looking back on it, i regret
5:49 pm
that vote in a recognize the fully safety risk. -- i thinkiate you it is more than just another vote. this one was significant. we all caps votes here -- cast votes here and we are responsible for every one of them. some of more significant and this one strikes me as profoundly significant because it involves not just a matter of constitutional right, not just the will of law, but physical safety per doctors who constitutionally guaranteed rights to women vulnerable to the same kind of violence. i appreciate the comments on it. i think it is something we will have to take into account. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have some questions for judge boggs.
5:50 pm
that mainly -- the rest of you should feel good about that. that is what i am saying. you should feel very happy about that. judge boggs, i had the opportunity to meet you a couple of weeks ago. i enjoyed that meeting. can decidehat judges thegs by, you know, in proper way even if they have had a record before of votes when they are in the legislature that are contrary to constitutional -- what has been decided constitutionally. i don't want a situation where we cannot ever have people somermed because they had public record on something. i think that is a bad tendency. that is a bad tendency to do that.
5:51 pm
se ai think that -- becau judges role is to make decisions based on what the law is. not take their personal opinions, although, personal opinions or experience do shape how a judge -- invariabley have to. experience is the law in many ways for judges. we haveit is important to factor that in but we cannot whereish a system here just looking at things in the past, either it is voting in the legislature or just opinions expressed by a professor who is i thinkscholarship,
5:52 pm
that is a dangerous thing we're doing. it is good wet get to question you and it is good we get to meet you beforehand in private. about thek to you confederate flag or the confederate war symbol or battle you told mee flag, that you voted against changing the flag because your constituents wanted the right to vote on it -- on a referendum. was in that right? >> yes. >> it turned out you voted twice on this in the first time in 2001, there was no referendum. so, i felt kind of -- a little odd.
5:53 pm
that one there was no referendum and -- give me a chacnce -- i 'd like to give you a chance to explain that because what i got out of our meeting was that you had was that your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum on this. yet, there was no referendum attached to it the first time. can you explain both votes? was noed, there nonbinding referendum presented in that legislation. my constituents overwhelmingly believed that a vote against that bill might subsequently result in a referendum that would offer them an opportunity to choose the old flag and the new flag. i have expressed earlier my position on that. i don't know how to explain it any further. i will tell you that it was an agonizing opportunity 17 days
5:54 pm
into my legislative career to make this balance between -- address this challenge between voting the will of my constituents and will in what i believe was the correct thing to do. subsequently, there was an opportunity to choose to present to the p nonbinding referendum that -1956ding the post flag and the flag we change to, i voted for that. it provided my constituents with what i thought they wanted. however, that didn't pass and there was another referendum to the one you refer to. voted the same way i did the same time -- the friirst time. >> did you present a resolution to provide a referendum? >> no. i didn't author any of his bills. >> you understand from my point of view where when asked about
5:55 pm
this, you said it was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum. but, there was no referendum on that vote and you didn't introduce anything about a referendum. did you say anything? was there anything in the public record about you saying there should be a referendum? >> i never spoke been about my position on the flag. >> ok. but you talk to me about it and what you said to me was the way you voted was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on its. . it doesn't seem like that vote had anything to do with a referendum. >> i am to stand -- i understand the question. i don't see the inconsistency that your question presumes. my constituents wanted to vote. we were not presented with an opportunity and that therefore represents an inconsistency.
5:56 pm
my position was my constituent'' position was was to vote against any flag change that didn't present them with an opportunity to vote. 17 days into my career would not have been the time for me to introduce a binding -- a nonbinding resolution on that matter. >> what you told me was that you voted because you wanted to have a chance to vote. nevertheless, there is no record of you saying that. actually, there was a record of you telling in local newspaper that you voted to keep the flag n 2001 -- you voted to keep it because you constituents overwhelmingly supported the flag. >> i did say that. i think that is consistent with what i have said today. and when we met. >> it seems like that when you -- when we met. you said that -- you didn't say
5:57 pm
it was because your constituents overwhelmingly supported the flag, it was because her constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on it. i think those are two different things. it gave me -- it led me to the understanding whether you intended it or not, was that your only vote was a vote on whether to vote that -- put that flag up for a vote. that is what you wanted. that you voted against changing the confederate flag on the georgia state flag. it is like a big part of the flag, like half the flag or something. that was passed in 1956. that was because of brown. -- thiseally was about wasn't something that was part of the georgia state flag after reconstruction. it happened in 1956, 2 years
5:58 pm
after brown. to me, this is a very important thing. as i said, i don't think that we should be judging or we should be confirming people based on public stuff they have said so an unless it is pedicle to being a judge. i know you've been a judge for 10 years now. i hear wonderful things about you. thathing that upsets me or gave me some pause is that we have this meeting. in the meaning -- meeting, i felt that you gave me a little slightly mis-present in -- misrepresentation of your record on this by saying that the reason you voted against the changing the confederate flag flag wasthe state
5:59 pm
that your constituents wanted a referendum on it. but, there was a referendum tied to it. you didn't raise anything about a referendum. you didn't say anything public about it. in fact, you told a local newspaper that the reason you voted against it was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted to keep that flag. those are two different excavations to me. -- explanations to me. ow, i amam very, you kn very disturbed of this tendency of us to vote against people because something in their past because they were brave enough or acted out of conviction beforehand. i do judge by my meeting with people how forthright they are.
6:00 pm
on this last thing, on this thing that the chairman brought to putt the voting online the number voting to put online the number of procedures, the abortion procedures that doctors have performed. time, theseat n├╝rnberg feil that they talked about. they put on the names of doctors. there have been doctors murdered for this. and yet you say that your state legislator -- you were a state legislator, but you're not aware of that? >> it was not my amendment. the bill proposed to be amended was the patient right to know , predominantly related to
6:01 pm
medical malpractice lawsuits. i don't recall, senator, if it listed other procedures. i have indicated here today and i would've indicated previously that my position on that -- >> you were a state legislator at the time but not aware of any of the public safety issues involved around this issue? >> i wasn't and i think that is attributable to the fact that this came as a floor amendment and not something i had an opportunity to study or even speak to other legislators about. >> it is simply off your radar. toh all this news around threats to doctors and bombings of clinics, those kinds of things. how old were you at the time? >> 37.
6:02 pm
>> a state legislator. and were not aware of any of that. >> no, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. think all of the panel members for being here. you explained your vote regarding the georgia flag. positionined your regarding the online posting of abortion instances as basically, if i understand you, you selecting your constituents views and not your own conscience. is that accurate? >> with respect to the flag, yes. with respect to my position on reproductive rights issues, i was respecting also the will of my constituents. for those of us that have
6:03 pm
served in state legislatures, we know the challenges and when to express your constituents use and when to vote your conscience. as you think back, can you give an example of when you went against the will of your constituents? >> i can think of several instances, senator. reapportionment maps drawn by democrats in the general a simile drawn by my term in the legislature. they were not supported by the majority of people in my district. considering that so many of the questions we have been asking have to do with the area of reproductive rights and civil you, at any point, voted your conscience on matters that are related to the gist of the questions we have been asking? >> i can't think of any specific instance.
6:04 pm
without given the opportunity to review my voting record. >> that's fair. , i wantedamendments to ask you, you said your personal view would not be appropriate for you to let us know. do you agree with the supreme court's decision that granted a constitutional right to a woman to have an abortion? >> absolutely. i would be bound by those if i were confirmed and i pledge to you that i would faithfully follow that president. until the u.s. supreme court changes its decision, you will apply it in the way that it should be applied? >> without question, senator. >> you are also a vocal
6:05 pm
proponent for george's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. you've also raised questions about judicial activism. the way you put it is that you have concerns about judges issuing decisions that venture into policymaking. i take it that's what you mean by judicial activism. that should be left to the legislature. >> yes. constitutional amendment, you know that the constitutional amendment is being challenged. >> yes. >> if the amendment is struck down by the federal court, would you consider that court to be engaging in judicial activism? >> i would not. made back to my comments in 2004, as a state legislator, candidly, i did believe that at that time. my comments about judicial wouldsm were that judges
6:06 pm
have been engaging in that. looking back on that now, particularly with 10 years being a judge, 10 years being faithful to the obligation. 10 years of looking back on a career as a legislator, noting the notable differences between both roles, that is what i was referring to in 2004 but i do not believe that now. decideat judge might that that constitutional amendment would be engaging in judicial activism. would you consider judicial activism in the context of if it were a lower court that word doing things that don't comport with what you've you as what the u.s. supreme court held? our supreme when court decided lilly ledbetter or decided citizens united, would you consider those decisions judicial activism?
6:07 pm
it did take a lot of people by surprise. >> i would not and the difference is my view of as aial activism legislator and as a judge. i have grown in my job as a judge to respect the role of judges to decide those cases based on the facts presented before them. when i was a legislator, i was not a judge. i was not making decisions in that capacity. it was determining what i was at the time that i made those comments. but certainly, you are correct. in 2004 werei made reflective of the sentiment you expressed. as a judge, you will be confronted with cases before you . the decisions that you make could be described i state legislators like you were as
6:08 pm
judicial activism. possibilitysee that as a federal judge? >> judges at all levels of court in my state are routinely criticized for making unpopular decisions. that making legislation legislators don't believe are appropriate. ride foren a judge that happened and i've been there when it happened. a judge the show's faithfulness to the rule of law will apply precedent faithfully and while it is true those issues, the equal rights issues have not come before me on a regular basis as an appellate judge, the jurisdiction i have on the court of appeals is broad. and in each instance, i have been faithful to follow the rule of law. you could engage in what some
6:09 pm
legislators may consider to be judicial activism based on the facts of the case and was presented to you. what a stateesume legislator might think about any decision. one like me may very well criticize me. but what i would say to that is that i have shown dedication to the code of judicial conduct and never decided cases based on fear of clamor or fear of criticism. >> just for clarification, as a state court judge, have you had a cases dealing with marriage equality, equal protection for gays and lesbians, and i think you noted that you had a case involving a minor seeking an abortion. equality cases, equal protection of gays and lesbians, have you had any cases in those areas? had one, senator, that is an adoption case and the
6:10 pm
record is sealed and i would not want to do anything to jeopardize the rights of the mother. but i will tell you that i did have a case is a trial court judge several years ago wherein a woman who identified herself as lesbian and identified her requested thatme i approved for adoption of a child from foster care. georgia law is particular in respect to juvenile court matters and adoptions. it is sacred that we maintain in thatlity of our laws those records are sealed. i don't know what she may have told family or others in her committee concerning her sexual orientation. it's irrelevant to me. but i know i was presented by that case with a lawyer that told me he had presented that case to our circuit's chief judge and he refused to hear that case. so he came to me, the junior
6:11 pm
judge in the circuit. i listened to her evidence, her fitness to be an adoptive parent. i listened faithfully and impartially to the evidence presented and i approved the adoption. and as i've said routinely, i am faithful to follow the law. was the appropriate decision, not because of her sexual orientation but because the facts warranted it. she had shown an ability to take care of the child to the foster care program. they conducted a home of valuation, her home was clean and she was capable of taking care of the child. i handled that case as i would for any other petitioner sick -- concerning adoptions. >> my time is up. thank you. >> i would like to thank all the
6:12 pm
nominees that appeared before us this morning. they give her the opportunity to join what i understand has been a vigorous exchange and i like to thank senator blumenthal for chairing today. i would like to ask each of you if you would offer the comments you wish on what role you think you would have as a member of the federal judiciary in ensuring equal access to justice and ensuring a fair and balanced treatment of all litigants that appear before you and what gives us some confidence that you will make that a priority. is of stated, i believe that my role as a judge, if i am be to fairly and impartially apply the applicable law to the individual facts of each case. necessitate a be fair and impartial with each person that comes before me. i believe that throughout this
6:13 pm
process, people have talked to lawyers that appeared opposite me and i think my interaction , to be fair in all cases to see the full picture not disregarding my duty as a andecutor, but to be fair considerate of what was going on. lawyers that worked with me say that i attempt to be fair and balanced and would carry that into being a district court judge if i am confirmed. access is kind of a broad topic. i view equal access to the court as being a model of efficiency. that the judge has an obligation to move cases to the system so that they don't languish and litigants have the opportunity to bring closure to their cases. the efficiency of the judicial
6:14 pm
system is bent on that. .nd i think it is necessary you have corporate litigants that have no closure to cases. equal access means a lot of things, that the judge should remain active in the case, move cases forward, said reasonable deadlines. and also move the court into a system that is more efficient. -- i developed a drug court program to move some of the felony cases off of the original docket. pretrialan i supported programs and mandatory civil trials where juries have been requested. all models built on allowing equal access by improving how quickly people can get to court. with respect to ensuring everyone is treated fairly, the best evidence i could give you of that is my record is trial court judge and appellate court
6:15 pm
judge where i have an unblemished record of having ensured that everybody that appears before me is treated equally with an unbiased and impartial application of the law . that is what has prepared me, i think, to model that. >> if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, the ocean that i would take provides that i would administer justice without respect a person and do equal rights. i would take that very seriously. i think it is a cardinal factor that any federal judge has to consider when he or she is presiding over a case. looking attant, just my record, a lot of attorneys in private practice have done pro bono work and i have certainly done some with respect to working with the atlanta bar association's, the eviction defense program, representing people that are being unjustly
6:16 pm
thrown out of their apartments. and i served on the board of the wilderness group that provided for alternative sentencing for juveniles that should not have gone into a juvenile detention facility, but deserved to do go to a program where they can get education and work to keep themselves out of the adult prison system down the road. we have the federal defender program. whenever a defendant came before may, we would ensure the defendant had the opportunity to represent that person. throughout my time in private practice, i have mainly been handling negotiations. interns of my work experience, i find that people are not for
6:17 pm
mayor with the court system and we have to take them through what is going to happen and educate them about the civil system. along with my colleagues, i believe the most important part of equal access is to treat everyone fairly before the law, the matter what their circumstances are. there are concrete activities that judges can do to make them more likely. courts on their website can provide links to different resources that people can utilize. detailsan provide more for those representatives and they can learn more what is expected of them in the courtroom. ultimately, a judge has a responsibility to encourage pro bono work and be out in the community and speaking on issues of equal access to the court. and i have been very active in
6:18 pm
my own career with pro bono activities. >> thank you so much. it's no problem at all. i have concerned myself very much with equal access. we do have a lot of litigants in state court. it is important to ensure that they know the resources available to them including the services of the public defender and legal aid as well as the law library. , i am terms of fairness very fair and respectful to the litigants that appear before me, whether they are the most well-versed and well-known attorneys or first-time litigants. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, i would definitely continue it. if i might, i have a few questions that i wanted to get to. member of vote as a
6:19 pm
the georgia legislature to approve posting profiles of up abortion doctors online and there has been some exchange about that. what motivated your vote for that measure? and how can i understand that measure as being anything other than an attempt to burden a woman's right to choose. i was motivated by a very strong desire to represent the will of my 38,000 constituents that were predominantly pro-life. as issues were important to my constituents. that amendment, an amendment i did not have very much time to consider and from which i have expressed regret for having not been more considerate of that end of the day, the motivating factor on pro-life issues in general was motivated by my desire to represent my constituents. 2012, you completed an application and you stated, the
6:20 pm
judiciary continues to endure decisionsby issuing that venture into policymaking. this is the question of activism by the judiciary. if you could, help me understand. or lawrence versus texas, were they being inappropriately activist? >> no, sir. have they earned criticism for your -- for the aggregated authority? on the floor is a legislature, judges that were declaring same-sex marriages constitutional. , as as what i thought legislator, the cases i was referring to. those states where they had to
6:21 pm
clear that law constitutional. looking back on that, 13 years later and with the benefit of having been a judge for 10 years, the concept of activist judge that i had as a legislator is no longer prevalent in my mindset. you said earlier today it would be inappropriate under the canon of judicial ethics or perhaps the federal canon to convey to this committee where you stand on particular issues, but those same cans would have applied to you as a judicial candidate in 2004 when you made a public announcement about where you stood on issues like same-sex marriage. was that a violation of the canon of judicial ethics? looking backl you on those comments made while i was still in legislator but also seeking the job of judge and candidly probably after i qualified for the position, i
6:22 pm
regret that i wasn't more artful crafting an explanation to my constituents that reflected my understanding of the role of the judge. can says that a candidate shall not make a contribution to a political organization. a political organization is defined as a political party or group, to further the election of a candidate to office. and you considered georgia conservatives and action to be a political organization under that definition? to look at it. i am familiar with the organization but not enough with regard attack status. madeur campaign committee a contribution to it in september of 2012 and my understanding is the georgia conservatives and action endorses political candidates. that is an issue that is of some
6:23 pm
concern to me that i think crosses a line that is fairly clear. they also say a candidate shall not publicly endorse a candidate. when did you announce your candidacy for superior court judge? recall.'t it would've been sometime in 2004. >> were you a member of the democrats for bush national steering committee? >> to my knowledge i had never been a member of that committee. it was only through this process that i've discovered that i had been listed. and i believe that listing without my permission or knowledge was by virtue of me having attended a meeting prior to his fundraiser in georgia. i did not make any political contribution. i realize that everyone that
6:24 pm
attended that with the exception of one member was listed. without my authority and i had no knowledge of it. at the time, i made a contribution from my judicial campaign. i had no knowledge of their sponsorship or endorsement of any candidate for elective office. >> i appreciate your answers and i may have others. i appreciate your forbearance at the time i've taken. i think there is a record that well there's consideration and i appreciate your testimony today. >> the questions you have been asked lead me to one last set of questions and i promise they will be brief. topic of judicial activism and the right to privacy, you may recall in
6:25 pm
february of 2004, in your capacity as a state legislator, you spoke on the floor of the georgia house of representatives in favor of a resolution calling for a proposed constitutional amendment that would've banned same-sex marriage. and in support of that resolution, you said to your colleagues that they should "dangers posed by activist judges operating in current state law." and you cited, as an example of , a decision by the supreme court of the state of case ofin the 1998 they strucks state. down the georgia sodomy statute
6:26 pm
made it illegal for people to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes. do you think the georgia supreme court wrongly decided? >> i don't now. my views have changed and i roles have changed. aboutegislator talking activist judges, it was different than what i believe now. >> and you would not now support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? >> no, sir. my position whatever it might've been then and whatever it is now, has no import whatsoever on how i decide cases. >> and the judge carly dissent,
6:27 pm
you cited his dissent as evidence of the potential -- i wonder if you would agree now with justice carly who wrote in that dissent constitutional right to privacy obviously cannot include the right to engage in private conduct which was condemned and at the very time the constitution was ratified. the constitutional right to privacy obviously cannot conclude the right to private conduct that was condemned as criminal at the very time the constitution was ratified. you cited that dissent with approval and support of the view that in effect, powell was
6:28 pm
wrongly decided. i would just point out that georgia had many statutes, including criminalizing sexual relationships and marriages between people of different races at the time was passed and justice carly's dissent privacyd the right to would cover those kinds of private consensual acts. >> i think to the extent that agree or disagree, i haven't read the dissent in 10 years. the personal views are relevant but to the extent his opinion has conflicted with decisions with the supreme court, i would follow the decisions of the supreme court and well i have respect for him, a very good friend of mine formally on the georgia supreme court, my role
6:29 pm
as a judge would be to apply precedent. i want to close by thanking andof you as potential judgesdistrict court because you are really going to serve as the protectors and guardians of our nation's legal conscience. fact thinkingthat of judge frank johnson whose memory was invoked by senator durbin. you know judge johnson's history. he was more than an icon. it was a hero. is the reason that many of us chose this career at shows to be trial lawyers or prosecutors.
6:30 pm
conscience and conviction and courage standing up to ostracism, physical threat, and violence. i hope that you will take this responsibility -- i know you will take it seriously because you are truly going to be the voice and face of justice for people coming to your courtrooms. longt to thank you for the hours you will spend, willing to serve here today. their leadership making nominations possible and the president of the united states for his faith in your ability to serve. with that, i will adjourn this hearing and the record will be kept open for one week. thank you all for attending.
6:31 pm
john conyers does not have enough signatures to appear on the primary ballot in august. they choose the validity of the signatures. they were not registered voters in michigan as required under state law. signatures he obtained did not count. after the challenges, he had 592. he was to keep this for five decades. the confirmation hearing to serve as health and human services secretary, senate finance committee will hold that
6:32 pm
hearing tomorrow afternoon. book, an's newest collection of interviews with some of the nations top storytellers. >> i can't say what the moment was because i have been living it all my life. it is where they met, married, and the great migration. all mylived with it life. i was surrounded by the language, the food, the music. ambition of whose child would go to which school.
6:33 pm
it has been with me all this time. >> published by public affairs books now available at your favorite bookseller. >> sergeant kyle white is the seventh living recipient of the metal for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> they call on us to be devoted to one another and honor one another above ourselves. we are blessed to honor and american soldier, actions were witnessed to the depth of his love and depth of his honor. medal of honor is bestowed on kyle white.
6:34 pm
we know god, it is dearness that gives everything its value. by honoring sergeant white we honor the men who fought that day. we may live worthy of honor, devotion and courage that we recognize today. pray all of this in your holy name, amen. >> good afternoon everybody. welcome to the white house. it has been said that true courage is a perfect sense -- sensibility and measure of danger and willingness to incur
6:35 pm
it. for more than 12 years, the men and women of armed forces know the dangers comes. but, year after year, tour after tour, they have displayed a selfless willingness to incur it by stepping forward, by volunteering by serving and sacrificing greatly to keep us all safe. today our troops are coming home. by the end of this year our war in afghanistan will be over. we'll welcome home this generation. the 9/11 generation that proven itself to be one of america's greatest generation. today we pay tribute to a soldier who encourage that generation. the man when the twin towers felt and who became an elite paratrooper with 173rd airborne.
6:36 pm
the sky of soldiers. today we present our nation's highest military decoration, medal of honor to sergeant kyle j. white. kyle is the second sky soldier to be recognized with the medal of honor for service above and beyond for the call of duty in afghanistan. today he joins a proud brotherhood of previous nominees and members of the medal of honor society. and ie a lot of vips here like to ignores the most important. kyle's parents. and his girlfriend helen. home ind that back washington when kyle wanted to
6:37 pm
enlist, at first he set his sights on the marines. so i am told that there was a difference of opinion. as commander-in-chief, i cannot take sides in this debate. bottom line is, kyle joined the army. and he carried on his family's trout -- proud tradition of service. across afghanistan, base commanders were glued to radios listening as american forces fought back and ambushed in the rugged mountains. one commander remembered all of afghanistan was listening was a soldier on the ground, describe what was happening. they knew him by his call sign. charlie 16 romeo. we know it was kyle who at the time was just 20 years old and only 21 months into his military service.
6:38 pm
earlier that afternoon, kyle and the 13 members of his team along with a squad of afghan soldiers left an afghan village after meting -- the americans made their way back up to a steep hill, cliff rising to their right. they knew not to stop but they had to keep moving. they're headed to an area known as ambush alley. that's when a single shot rang out, then another, then an entire canyon erupted with bullets coming from every direction. it was as if kyle said the whole valley lit up. platoon returned fire. kyle quickly emptied a full magazine but has and went to load a second, an enemy grenade exploded and knocked him unconscious. he came to with his face pressed against the rocks.
6:39 pm
he moved to get up and rocks entered from his head. most of the unit had been forced to slide down the cliff to the valley below. kyle saw teammate trying to treat his own senatered arm -- shattered arm using a tree as cover. kyle sprinted through enemy fire and began flying a tourniquet. then kyle saw another man down, sergeant phillip box, 30 feet behind him too injured to reach cover. kyle remember thinking it's just a matter of time before i'm dead. if that's going to happen, i might as well help someone while i can. kyle ran to box and began to pull the injured marine to cover. worried that he exposed more to gunfire, kyle retreated.
6:40 pm
the enemy rounds followed him. he ran out again. once more he retreated to distract the enemy fire. once more he went out thinking to himself i'm not going to make it. kyle could feel the pressure of the rounds going by him. somehow miraculously, they never hit him, not once. one of his teammates say the as if kyle was moving faster than a speeding bullet. finally kyle succeeded in pulling his conrad to cover. in his final moments, this american marine found some solace in kyle white, the american soldier until the end was there by his side. now that other injured soldier, was still out there. he sustained another injury to his knee. kyle ran out once more, kyle ripped out his own belt for a
6:41 pm
tourniquet and soon got his hands on a working radio. crouching behind that lone tree, kyle began kyle in air -- calling in air strikes to take at out enemy position. kyle was starting to feel the fog on his own concussion set in. he knew he was cain's best chance to get out alive. so kyle took charge. he called in a metal to make sure cain and the other injured were safely only board. as a helicopter pulled away, kyle looked out the window. when you're deployed, he later said, those people become your family. what you really care about is, i
6:42 pm
want to get this guy left and to the right home. this family was tested that day. not a single one of them escaped without injury and americans gave their lives, their last full measure of devotion. we remember them today, sergeant phillip box, specialist joseph m. -- sergeant jeffrey s., corporal lester g., and kyle's best friend, corporal sean k.a. some of their families are here today. i ask them to please stand so we can recognize their extraordinary sacrifice. >> [applause]
6:43 pm
>> the legacy of their fallen heroes, 14 men for every brothers in arms. we're proud to welcome those who fought that day. specialist cain shilling the soldier kyle saved and members of the second battalion of the airborne brigade. would you please stand. we honor kyle white for his extraordinary actions on that november day. his journey from day to this speaks to the story of his we honor kyle white for his
6:44 pm
extraordinary actions on that november day. his journey from day to this speaks to the story of his generation. kyle completed the rest of a 15 month deployment in afghanistan. he came back home and trained other paratroopers. he went to college, graduated and today works for a bank in charlotte, north carolina. people see a man in a suit headed to work. a proud veteran walking into his community, contributing his talents and skills to the progress of our nation. but kyle will tell you that the transition to civilian life and
6:45 pm
dealing with the post-traumatic stress hasn't been easy. more than six years later, he can still see the image and hear the sounds of that battle. everyday we wakes up thinking about his battle buddies. if you look closely at that man in a suit, you'll note the piece of war he carries with him tucked under his shirt sleeve. they are sacrifice motivates me, he says to be best i can be. everything i do in my life is to make them proud. kyle, members of chosen company, you did your duty and now it's time for america to do ours. after more than decade of war to welcome you home to the support and benefit and opportunities you've earned. you make us proud and you
6:46 pm
motivate all of us to be the best we can be as americans and as a nation. to uphold air sacred obligation. may god bless you and may your courage inspire and sustain us always. may god continue to bless the united states of america. with that, i like to have the citation read. >> the president of the united states of america authorized by act of congress march 3, has awarded the medal of honor to specialist kyle j. white united states army.
6:47 pm
kyle j. white distinguished himself at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of truth while serving as a radio telephone operator with company seed, second battalion airborne infantry, 173rd airborne. specialist wait and his comrades were returning with village as the soldiers traversed a narrow path surrounded by rocky terrain. pinned against a steep mountain face, specialist white and his fellow soldiers were completely exposed to enemy fire. shaking off his wound,
6:48 pm
specialist white noticed one of his comrades lying wounded nearby. without hesitation, specialist white exposed himself to enemy fire in order to reach the soldier and provide medical aid. after applying a tourniquet, specialist white moved to the marine providing aid and comfort. specialest white returned to the soldier and discovered he had been wounded again. applying his own belt, specialist white was able to stem the blow of blood and save the soldier's life. notice his and other soldier's radios were inoperative. he then provided information and updates to friendly forces allowing prevision air strikes to stifle the enemy's attack and ultimately permitting medical
6:49 pm
evacuation aircraft to rescue him, marines and afghan army soldiers. specialist kyle j. white, extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of dewton keeping -- duty on keeping with the highest regimen. [applause]
6:50 pm
[applause] >> let us pray. god's gracious mercy and protection we commit ourselves inspired by the actions of sergeant kyle white, we go our way in peace. it will be a good courage, we hold fast to that which is good.
6:51 pm
under to no evil, no one evil for evil, rather than to be strengthened and support the weak. we help the wounded and honor all persons. god be with us to this day. we pray in his holy name, amen. >> that concludes the ceremony. but not the celebration. i hear the food here is pretty good. and the drinks are free. i hope all of you enjoy the hospitality of the white house. i hope we all remember once again those who are fallen. we are grateful to the families who are here and to kyle and all of who serve in america's armed forces. we want you to know that we will always be grateful for your
6:52 pm
extraordinary service to our country. thank you very much. have a great afternoon. >> for over 35 years, c-span -- rings you briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. are c-span, brought to you as a public service by her local cable or satellite provider.
6:53 pm
watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. the weekend, florida senator marco rubio said he is ready to be president. in washington, he spoke at the national press club. you can see the speech tonight at c-span2. here are a few minutes of his remarks. >> earlier this week, you rejected assertions that human activity is causing climate change and actions taken to curtail such activity will destroy our economy. how would you propose the country whether any dramatic shifts in climate and the impacts such shifts could have on quality-of-life? >> headlines notwithstanding, of course the climate is changing. the climate is always changing. the issue is not whether the climate is changing, the issue is if there are legislative proposals i can do anything
6:54 pm
about it. and what i have said is that if we pass cap and trade, this will stop this from happening when half of the new omissions on the planet are coming from developing countries and another half is from china that will not follow whatever laws we pass. all in favor of advances of technology and innovation that makes us cleaner and more efficient but through a cost-benefit analysis, determines what is good for our economy and i don't think those two things are incompatible but it must be part of a cost-benefit analysis. i agree we need to spend time and energy on mitigation as well because there are mitigation actions that need to be taking place. in the southeast, we have built very expensive structures near the coastline that are susceptible to national weather
6:55 pm
occurrences and all sorts of weather events of this nature. i have no problem with mitigation evidence and i have no problem with advances in technology but by no means am i going to tell people that if we do things they are proposing by changing these laws and the way we conduct our energy policy that it would have any measurable impact on our weather. >> what studies are you relying is notnform you that it to blame for climate change. never disputed the climate is changing. it is never static. it is not the question before me as a policy maker. bane ban: the u.s., if we carbon emissions, will it change the dramatic changes in climate and these dramatic impacts we
6:56 pm
are reading about? truth of the matter is the united states is a country and not a planet. there are things we can do to become more efficient. can do to bengs we better stewards. if you passo go say this bill that i am proposing, this will lead us to have less tornadoes and less hurricanes, that is not an accurate statement. >> you can see all of his speech at the national press club on our companion network. a conversation with national security advisor susan rice, interviewed by judy woodruff of the pbs news hour. the women's foreign policy group is hosting a discussion.
6:57 pm
financeral housing agency is looking to wind down the operations of fannie mae and freddie mac. the head of the agency says it is reversing course. until congress passes legislation, the agency will not back away from the mortgage market. >> i am the vice president and director of economic studies in the brookings institution. i am pleased to introduce keynote speaker and director of the federal housing finance agency. we are thrilled to have the director here today to give his views on finance. are now approaching six years of fannie mae and freddie mac placed into conservatorship. ways, there are fundamental structures that are unchanged.
6:58 pm
the regulator and conservator of fannie and freddie and the , prior to that, a member of the u.s. house of representatives representing the home state of north carolina. lawre that, he practiced for 20 years specializing in minority business and economic development law. the director served on the subcommittee on government-sponsored enterprises and financial institutions and consumer credit on the house financial services committee. he also introduced anti-predatory lending legislation to combat the mortgage lending market.
6:59 pm
with that short summary, i am glad to let him take it away. question andve a answer session and we will open it up to you. that panel will be nominated discuss fannie and freddie's role and the roles pending in congress. please join me in welcoming director watt. [applause] >> good morning. good morning. that's good. let me start by thanking the folks at brookings for hosting us. his kinding ted for introduction.
7:00 pm
a number ofand that you have been waiting to hear from me. and that some of you have been expecting me to say something sooner than now. i was sworn in on january 6. except for speech last week federal home bank system you have not heard a word for me. not a p. not a press interview. not a speech. not a word. so some of you are probably wondering has this guy made a cold turkey transition from member of congress, outspoken to policy wonk regulator?
7:01 pm
what is up with this guy? morning toou this talk for a little bit. you have not heard much from me but it has -- does not mean that we have not been working since january. fha has continued to carry out its responsibilities as the regulator of the federal homeland banks and as the conservator and regulator of and freddie mac. many of these decisions and responsibilities are often considered routine and may go unnoticed but they are absolutely critical to the effective and efficient operation of the housing finance market. i cannot touch on all of my
7:02 pm
responsibilities in my remarks today but i wanted to give you a we have beenat working on since i arrived and i you some will provide insight into the direction we will be headed in the future particularly with reference to fannie mae and freddie mac. in addition to overseeing our day-to-day operations, my work has also involved an overall asessment of fha as well fannie and freddie. witnessed theme i of fhtion and expertise at face staff at all levels as well as the tenacity and indication of the employees of fannie mae and freddie mac who continued to stay the course during these most if a cold and
7:03 pm
uncertain times. i would be remiss not to acknowledge and thank the staff's for their hard work. there has been a constant urgency since the financial crisis. want to thank ed dimarco for his lifelong career in public service including the time as in thedirector of shf ap face of general great economic collapse, the biggest one since the great depression, fhfa director for event an extremely
7:04 pm
bad situation from getting much worse. it is hard to imagine things being worse gives -- given the depth of the housing market collapse but i very much believe and add dimarco's leadership prevented an even deeper financial collapse by stabilizing fannie mae and freddie mac. at fhfaut his time director was ensure mental in establishing the foundation for all that we will do going forward. notice for myay comments today certain changes in focus, you should know that i firmly believe that we will be building on a very solid foundation. as part of an overall assessment
7:05 pm
of the agency we have been very focused on the numerous policy decisions that were and are in the pipeline. in making decisions about the future strategic direction of the enterprise conservatorships the principal we are following is how best to fulfill our current obligations under current law. this means first and foremost that we must ensure that fannie and freddie operate in a safe and sound manner. it means that we will work to reserve and conserve fannie and freddie's assets and it means aat we will work to ensure liquid and efficient national housing finance market. fhfa directorat
7:06 pm
and sees obligations and that is a message i will come back to throughout today's remarks. another way of stating the principle that will be guiding us is that fhfa director is focused on how we managed the present. the present conservatorships of presentrprises at the housing fight market. under the present statutory mandates. let me say that again. is to manage fannie undereddie in the present current statutory mandates. one topic that is not on the agenda because it is not part of our statutory mandate is housing finance
7:07 pm
reform legislation. my guess is that they are many people who would expected i would talk about gse reform, legislation, the minute i got to fh fa. aware and regularly express my leaf that conservatorships should never be viewed as a remnant condition or as a desirable in state. and that housing finance reform is necessary.
7:08 pm
our task is to continue to fulfill our statutory mandates to execute our strategic plan and to manage the present status of fannie and freddie. so today we're releasing a new for thec land conservatorships of fannie and freddie along with their 2014 scorecard. aroundcuments are built three strategic goals. maintain, reduce, and build. i would like to walk through each of these goals and discuss how they build upon and in some fa passedrmulate fh
7:09 pm
conservatorshiph goals. maintain in a safe and sound toner foreclosure prevention foster liquid efficient competitive and resilient national housing finance markets. goalirst strategic maintain, require standing -- fannie and freddie to carry out in strength and where possible three aspects of their core operations. we expect fannie and freddie to take actions that the presentidity in single family housing finance
7:10 pm
market. second, we believe they should continue to improve servicing standards and foreclosure prevention actions. and third we think they have a critical ongoing role in the multifamily sector particularly for affordable multifamily properties. areas ourse three overriding objective is to ensure that there is broad --uidity in the phones housing finance market and to do andn a way that is safe sound. the maintain goal is not a new one for the agency. increased placing an emphasis on it. we are leading with maintain as
7:11 pm
the first goal and our strategic plan and scorecard. we have doubled the scorecard from 20% 40%. let me begin my remarks about single-family liquidity by discussing representation and warranty standards and when these trigger repurchased demands. repurchase risk remains a top concern for the mortgage industry. lenders believe there is still uncertainty for this area to ease their credit this undermines the goal of improving access to mortgage credit for credit worthy errors.
7:12 pm
with extensive discussions fannie, freddie, and lenders over the past several months we of making a number refinements to address some of these concerns. as we authorized and as fannie and freddie announced yesterday they're going to relax the payment history requirement for granting representation and twoanty relief by allowing delinquent payments at the acquisition. levels also get loan confirmations when mortgages meet performance benchmarks and when they pass a quality control review. the enterprises will also eliminate automatic repurchases
7:13 pm
when a loan's primary mortgage insurance is rescinded. work refinements build on in 2014. process worke better for one. we now that more of prevents are needed to provide additional clarity. one area we are proud -- prioritizing is addressing the scope of life of loan exemptions. we know that lenders are concerned about how these exemptions apply to loans that have passed quality control reviews or have met the 36 month as work and we will work toward clarity on this issue.
7:14 pm
over the course of this year, we will also explore the following. establishing an independent dispute resolution program when lenders believe it repurchase is unwarranted. mechanisms for loan defects rather than relying solely on repurchases and providing additional clarity on fannie and freddie underwriting rules. there are two other issues i want to comment on that relate to the overall scope of single-family mortgages guaranteed by fannie and freddie. the first one involves loans with debt to income ratios above 30 -- 43%. current fannie and freddie guidelines make some of these
7:15 pm
loans eligible for purchase when the borrower has other compensating strengths. our ongoing safety and soundness obligations we will of course continue to monitor performance data relating to these factors. the second issue involves loan limits. as market participants are hfa released a f proposal last year suggesting that the agency might use this conservatorship authority to lower the mortgage amounts eligible for guaranteed by fannie and freddie.
7:16 pm
many groups and individuals submitted feedback in response to their request for input. i am announcing today that fhfa will not use as -- its authority as conservator to reduce current loan limits. this decision is motivated by concerns about how such a impacton would adversely the current health of the housing finance market. the next part of our maintain goal involves continuing to he -- and improve service servicing and foreclosure
7:17 pm
prevention standards. experiences in recent years have revealed serious weaknesses in the servicing industry and in the foreclosure or mention alternatives offered to borrowers. as part of the focus in this stabilizerking to communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. launching a we are neighborhood stabilization initiative with fannie, freddie, and the national community stabilization trust. phase one of this initiative is a pilot program in detroit, michigan. we are pursuing pre-foreclosure
7:18 pm
and post-foreclosure strategies that include deeper loan modifications and partnering with nonprofits earlier in the real estate-owned sales process. fhfa believes this will be a win-win for hardest hit communities and for our conservatorship objectives. we have also received a number of inquiries about changing the eligibility requirements. because the number of borrowers we could add by extending the eligibility date or by changing performance requirements is relatively small, we have
7:19 pm
decided not to alter eligibility promoters. working to reach our good our outreach efforts to the borrowersely 750,000 who already qualify and would financially benefit from refinancing. we are exploring outreach efforts designed to gain the trust of these in the money borrowers so they will take action to refinance. it is already in their financial interests to do so. the goal extends to fannie and freddie's multifamily loan businesses. the is a critical part of
7:20 pm
way 14 strategic land particularly in light of the increasing number of households who are renting and pseudo-phoning in recent years and the fact that the affordability continues to be a significant concern for many households. our way 14y, strategic plan does not require a reduction in fannie and freddie's multifamily production levels and it provides additional capacity for affordable multifamily projects. consistent with safety and soundness our affordability focus will include multifamily lending for small properties and
7:21 pm
manufactured housing rental communities, much of which takes place in rural immunities. expect market competition in 2014 to actually result in lower multifamily levels for the fhfa will nott mandate that the enterprises prematurely shrink their multifamily footprint. i am on to the second goal. [laughter] strategic goal number two. educe taxpayer risk through
7:22 pm
increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market. reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market. 's second strategic goal, reduce -- it is focused on ways to bring on additional private capital into the system in order to reduce taxpayer risk. we have reformulated this goal so that it no longer involves contract thes to enterprise's market presence which could have an adverse impact on liquidity.
7:23 pm
, the reduced goal focuses on ways to scale back fannie and freddie's overall risk exposure. this approach allows us to meet our mandates of upholding safety and soundness and ensuring broad market liquidity. while fhfa has reformulated the strategic goal, our strategy is to reduce taxpayer risk, build on much of fhfa's past work in this area. this includes having fannie and freddie conduct additional for theirk transfers single-family guarantee business. these transactions have opened up private capital to share and credit losses which protects
7:24 pm
taxpayers from bearing all of the potential losses. scorecard requires each enterprise to triple the amount of risk transfers in 2014. fromwill be an increase balanceion of unpaid transfers last year to billion inly $90 2014. on top of increasing the amount of credit risk transferred, the we also expect each enterprise to try new risk transfer structures to assess sustainability in different all of thistions.
7:25 pm
is consistent with the commitments i made to the senate banking committee during my confirmation process. in addition, we are requiring ongoing reductions in the enterprises retained portfolios. the senior preferred stock purchase agreements with the treasury department require the enterprises to reduce their portfolios to no more than $250 billion each by 2018. fannie and freddie must develop plans to meet this target even under adverse market conditions. we are also requiring them to prioritize selling their less liquid assets to reduce risk and take advantage of current investor interests.
7:26 pm
as their portfolios continued to effect is to transfer interest rate risks and liquidity risks from these portfolios to the private sector. multifamily purchases we are requiring the enterprises to continue sharing risks with the private sector which freddie mac does through a capital market fannie mae does through risksharing model. both approaches transfer a significant risk to a private rocket and have had strong through theeven economic crisis. we expect these models to continue. reductionother risk priority in 2014 involves
7:27 pm
insurancertgage counterparties. this work will strengthen master policies and eligibility standards for private mortgage insurers. mortgage insurance is a critical source of private capital in the mortgage finance market. however, as we all know, the crisis reveals severe weaknesses in the system. ensure thate is to private mortgage insurer counterparties to fannie and freddie are able to provide adequate credit loss projection in times of market stress.
7:28 pm
onto strategic goal number three. strategic goal number three. build the new single-family securitization infrastructure for use by the end prizes and adaptable for use by other process appends in the secondary market in the future. single-family securitization infrastructure for use by the enterprises and adaptable for use by other participants in the secondary market in the future. 's final strategic goal is to build a new infrastructure for the enterprises securitization functions. of this effort is the common securitization platform
7:29 pm
and i want to talk about two aspects of this today. first, after extensive and theon within fhfa enterprises we have clarified that the agency's top objective for the common securitization that it is to make sure works for the benefit of fannie and freddie. over the last four months we have identified the risk involved in transitioning to a common securitization platform and reviewed how to manage those risks. cause of the the many variables involved, the csp effort to the would be preserving too many
7:30 pm
objectives at the same time. waye any stumbles along the could have ripple effects in the $10 trillion housing finance stake, there is a lot at in getting this right. as a result, our decision has been to de-risk this project. moving forward, we will focus our efforts on creating a common securitization platform that can undertake fannie and freddie's current securitization outcomens. a successful would be a seamless transition from the current in-house systems that issue new securities for each enterprise to a future jot


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on